Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 336 posts

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#121

Post by Amezarak »

masklinn wrote: post #68
bastawhiz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has better addons The add-ons might be better, but XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. There's no permission model. The "APIs" are mostly the internals of Firefox itself, and when Firefox updates, lots of add-ons break. Most add-ons can be ported to webextensions. The ones that can't probably shouldn't have ever been add-ons t…

> They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on. That's the entire point. Firebug could not have existed as a WebExtension, and thus without XUL addons the entire web development field could still be on Venkman or Script Editor rather than where it is now. The XUL extensions model allows extensions in ways unmatched by WE, and yes the development experience isn't tremendous and it…

> That is utter garbage.

For real. I understand the security argument, but that poster and Mozilla in general seem to be making the argument that "no, you're wrong, you don't know what you want, we're going to tell you what you want, and it's a less feature-rich Firefox."

Well, I use Firefox, and I evangelize Firefox to everyone I know, on the basis, essentially of the extensions, and most of the popular Firefox extensions would have never come into existence with the new extension model. Mozilla is developing APIs to grandfather some of them in, but they're still reducing the possibility space from "anything" to "what we expose through these APIs", so new extensions that change everything will no longer come into being.

And aside from that, they don't even cover everything; I've already been notified by the developers of two extensions I use that they either can't or won't be switching over.

I really do have to agree with the people who are saying Mozilla has totally lost the plot. I've disabled automatic updates until I can figure out what I'm going to do.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#123

Post by fuzzy2 »

richardboegli wrote: post #15
Tree1993 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way we can continue use these classic addon?

Pale Moon

However, that’s pretty much the other extreme. It doesn’t support Web Extensions or even Add-on SDK extensions.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#124

Post by untog »

lisivka wrote: post #86

> And the theatre analogy is just silly. It's not like shutting down a theatre because someone got shot in it, it's like enacting a "no guns in this theatre" policy instead. "No guns here" means "Shooters, you will have zero resistance here. Enjoy!".

This is a perfect example of why using hot button issues as an analogy is always a bad idea.

A browser add-on is not a gun. A limited API is not a sign in a window telling you you can't do something, it's a hard restriction that makes breaking rules impossible.

So can we please, please, not turn this into a conversation about gun control? We don't even need an analogy. Everyone here understands browser add-ons.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#125

Post by Caspy7 »

mook wrote: post #83
shard972 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While i agree with the idea of being able to install whatever you want. What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode? I would bet that 99%~ people don't need or even want that kind of absolute freedom. As a chrome user, the only plugin I have that I can't get on the play store is one for downloading youtube videos but I can still install it from the author website, just takes a few extra clicks.

> What's wrong with it being behind a developer mode? The fact that one doesn't exist. "Developer edition" is really just their alpha build, they don't have release builds that allow unsigned extension installs.

You mean like the Unbranded builds of Release (and Beta) that allow unsigned extension installs?

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...

It seems that those very much exist.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#126

Post by jasonkostempski »

CaptSpify wrote: post #88
exceptione wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't rule that out either. It might be that it is in Googles best interest to kill firefox. Here is an alternative view I have in mind. The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like. Its imho feasible to launch a television and internet campaign promoting firefox after the transition by stressing the privacy qual…

> The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like. But that's what FF has been doing for the past ~5 years, and how has their share been doing? Not so well. Chrome has much more marketing behind it. And it comes from a name that people know and trust. Most people don't know who Mozilla is. And most people don't care a…

Is it still true you can't do extensions for Chrome on Android? If so, they should just do a commercial showing you can use uBlock Origin with it. That could get a good chunk to move on Android and if they use it there they might switch on desktop too.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#127

Post by Amezarak »

weaksauce wrote: post #105
tyingq wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on XUL does open up more attack surface than a web extension. However, web extensions open up enough that you're already in the business of trusting the creator of the extension. A web extension is fully capable of stealing my online banking credentials, for example.

Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers if they come from that channel. Is it going to catch every single malicious extension? Doubtful. Is it better than nothing? Yes.

XUL extensions are also vetted by AMO reviewers if they come from that channel, so that's no change, except to the extent they're easier to review.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#128

Post by stewbrew »

weaksauce wrote: post #105
tyingq wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on XUL does open up more attack surface than a web extension. However, web extensions open up enough that you're already in the business of trusting the creator of the extension. A web extension is fully capable of stealing my online banking credentials, for example.

Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers if they come from that channel. Is it going to catch every single malicious extension? Doubtful. Is it better than nothing? Yes.

All add-ons are vetted by amo reviewers -- unless explicitly stated otherwise. That's no argument pro web extensions.

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#129

Post by Amezarak »

untog wrote: post #53
falcolas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox will be better off for only supporting webextensions. Sounds like Firefox developers will be better off. Everyone else will suffer. I'm a developer, I understand how much the job sucks sometimes (that's why it's a job ). But if you want a product to succeed, can't afford to put the comfort of your developers over that of the end user.

No, security threats make both developers and users worse off. It's undoubtedly true that power users will lose a little of the functionality they like in Firefox, but that normal users will have a more secure browser. I'm sure someone will fork Firefox to keep a version alive for those power users. You might not agree with it, but the logic is sound.

> It's undoubtedly true that power users will lose a little of the functionality they like in Firefox, but that normal users will have a more secure browser

Why are these 'normal users' going to use Firefox when their power user friend no longer recommend it, when Google is pushing Chrome as hard as they can on every Google property, and when there are even installers that 'offer' to install Chrome for you? Mozilla can't compete with Google and Microsoft marketing efforts, they can't make anything more than a UI for the most popular mobile browsing platform, and they're alienating power users. Who is going to be pushing Firefox to normal users?

Re: Firefox 57 as the first release where only WebExtensions will be supported

#130

Post by fuzzy2 »

weaksauce wrote: post #105
tyingq wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>XUL-based Firefox add-ons are not better. They essentially give full control of your computer to the developer of the add-on XUL does open up more attack surface than a web extension. However, web extensions open up enough that you're already in the business of trusting the creator of the extension. A web extension is fully capable of stealing my online banking credentials, for example.

Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers if they come from that channel. Is it going to catch every single malicious extension? Doubtful. Is it better than nothing? Yes.

> Web extensions are vetted by amo reviewers [...]

But so is every other type of add-on. You even need to upload source code for binary components. (A XUL extension can include DLLs or their cross-platform equivalents.)

Post reply on HN